“Professor X was born in 1940 and served in the same unit with his stepbrother, Cain Marko, during the Korean War.”
So he served in the Korean War before he was 14 years old? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.
When Kirby & Lee first told the story of Xavier and Cain’s early days, Xavier must have been born before 1940. Later writers moved his birthdate to keep him from seeming too old, and these days he was probably born even later, and the origin of the Juggernaut happened after the Korean War was over. It could still happen in Korea, since there are US soldiers stationed there even now, but during some sort of fictional border incident rather than the actual war.
This is how Marvel Time works. Topical references get replaced over time. Reed and Ben no longer fought in WWII, and Ben and Johnny didn’t meet the Beatles.
But while Xavier and Cain can easily be slid forward in time, Magneto can’t, because WWII is so significant to his history. So he gets older and older, while they don’t.
So it’s not a problem that Cain is older than Xavier, because they’re both unanchored in time and stay at the same age-gap as they slide forward. Magneto, though, like Namor, gets older and older. It’s not a problem for Namor, other than making it harder for him to have met Betty Dean again in the modern era — but that’s been ignored for decades now, like Reed and Ben being in WWII. Magneto and Xavier’s relationship is still very active, so the growing age-gap creates an issue that matters to the comics of today.
I think I covered this in my response to Brandon, John. It’s easy to say he’s long-lived. But changing his meeting with Xavier so they’re vastly imbalanced in age changes things too — and even if you say they met in the 70s, in ten years that won’t work any more either.
So it’s possible to address it, but it takes some thought. Already I’m having some ideas that could create a new dynamic between Xavier and Magneto that could be pretty rich, but whether Marvel wants a new dynamic, I don’t know. Whether longtime fans want to see those Claremont stories revised and updated, I don’t know. It can get to be a delicate dance.
From an outside perspective, the introduction of secondary mutations seems like it could solve this one fairly easily if it becomes a huge issue. Max’s secondary mutation could just be slowed aging.
Yeah, that part’s easy. I’ve been suggesting that since the 80s, at least.
What Tom’s pointing out is that having Magneto be that old means he and Xavier didn’t meet as young men; Xavier was no longer alive when Magneto was young. And if Magneto made his public debut 14 years ago (or however long ago their current timeline says the events of X-Men 1 happened), what was he doing between 1945 and 2011? That’s a long stretch to be filled, and makes you wonder why did he decide on a big public crusade when he was approaching 80?
It’s easy to say he’s just long-lived; harder to deal with the relationships he formed as those years reel into the past.
That’s not to say it can’t be done, but doing it elegantly, in a way that serves the character, is still a hurdle.
This is the same problem with the JSA. You can come up with reasons why they lived a long time, but need some further explanation of why they waited till "30 years ago" to settle down and have children.
Or you get into the Gasoline Alley problem. You can work with Walt being the world's oldest person at around 125 by just writing him as very old and not being specific about being in WWI or that specifically old. But while they did kill off his similarly aged wife a couple of decades back and just didn't use his similarly aged pals any more, his son Skeezix is 100+, as is his wife. Their kids are in their 80s. And so on. So if the JSA did have kids at "normal" ages (lets call it under 40 for the most part, and yes, I'm aware there are cases of significantly older fathers; President John Tyler was born in 1790, assumed the office of President in 1841, and has a still living grandson some 235 years later); you have to how those kids are in their 60s-80s [which they seem to be doing by just ignoring it with the Black Canaries, as Dinah I would seem to have been in her 70s when she had Dinah II))
I've always liked the idea, which I've only seen in a few plays, that the characters remain the same age even as time passes around them. Like the musical "Love Life," which the Encores! series recently revived, about a couple who marry, raise children, contemplate divorce, etc. but the story begins in the 18th century and ends in the present day, with the characters going through a normal life span in hundreds of years without ever noticing.
The fact that this device is very rare even in the theatre (where it's easier to pull off) makes it clear that there is something alienating about it, but I feel like I personally would find it less alienating to say that all these things happened in the year the comics were published, regardless of how much time seems to have passed in between, than it is to constantly update references and erase the things we saw happen in the comics. It always catches me off guard and takes me out of the story when the FF went into space for a different reason, characters fought in a different war, etc.
No one will ever try it this way so it doesn't really matter, but I feel like (to use a non-comics example) I would like Homer and Marge Simpson to always have met in the 1970s, and just assume that time works differently in their world.
Is there anything we can expect/anticipate for Cloak and Dagger in the next year? Feels like they’ve never been more popular than they are right now thanks to Marvel Rivals, and I’d just love to see them at the very least have more team-up appearances in major books.
Exactly this, Especially Cloak, it feels like the spotlight has been completely yanked from him for some reason, I honestly hate the way he's being treated in the recent runs. It's almost as if certain writers don't like him. I really miss their Ultimate Universe variants. Even Marvel Rivals portrayed them better than most of what we have right now.
Weisinger was, like the rest of DC’s editors at the time, *very* hands on with plot. Schwartz, for one, was so hands on with co-plotting; he was so heavy on editing and necessarily rewriting Gardner Fox that he deserved co-writing credit or at acknowledgment at the GCD IMO. Also explains why Fox’s non-DC work read so different everywhere else.
Any, Weisinger. He was known to co-plot with one writer then give that plot to a second writer hiding that another writer was in any way involved. That, again IMO, made him special among the editors there.
So he kept pulling the same plots out of the drawer as it were: totally credible.
As for Superman’s sales ca the mid-60s, I say sales held up while the quality was declining. Again, just an opinion. (See Tom’s blog post.)
Can’t wait for Kurt B to detail how I’m wrong here.
With all the cancelations announced iceman/kitty pryde are now the only Canon queer characters to be in an x-men books well I'm pretty used to it or there's no representation at all or at least there's a few
saying that I have a question
Since kitty/iceman are the only ones in a book, are they gonna stay there and even if the book comes to an end, are they gonna be in another book without being shelved since they are the most known characters in the franchise when it comes to queer mutants
are you that offended by Kate liking women that it makes you yap that much? Sometimes people discover themselves later in life. Sorry that makes you uncomfortable.
Chris Claremont has stated that his intention was for Kitty Pryde to always be bisexual, but she couldn't be because of the censors. But it's absolutely there with her interactions with both Rachel Summers and Magik.
Agree on the greatness of Avengers Academy. But Kitty would have been bisexual if it was allowed. The author is on record as saying this. She wasn't turned into anything. Just because someone has only dated men in the past doesn't make her straight. We're just allowed to say bisexual now. Also, lots of people don't know their sexuality when they're young and discover it in later life.
"I didn't see the subtext there because I'm not looking for hidden meanings when I read my comics."
Well, suppose that was true, that the only way somebody could pick up subtext an author puts in is if they went looking for it. Would there be anything wrong with a gay kid looking for that in a character? And if they found it... is it always the case that the most valid interpretation of literature is one restricted to the surface? Because there are an awful lot of people very concerned about books that allegedly have inappropriate subtext in schools, and it would make it easier if we could all agree there are no hidden meanings and therefore no reason to be concerned!
"But I also wasn't an outcast or part of a minority"
In other words, not like the X-Men?
"I knew my identity because I has a supportive family and I'm also an only child. When you're an only child, you get way more attention from your parents then you do if you have siblings. So I didn't feel the need to have to act out to get my parents attention"
This is very interesting; so kids who are unsure of their identity or don't feel comfortable being open about it... do they all have unsupportive families or siblings or didn't get enough attention? Could there be any kids who struggled with being gay growing up who were only children and came from attentive, supportive families? I wonder if there might be other things that could make growing up gay difficult or confusing, besides siblings or inattentive, unsupportive families. I guess the only way we could really know is if there were people who spoke publicly about having other experiences.
About the Iceman thing, many creators have wanted to make Bobby gay since the 90s, as you can see in the Jean and Bobby scene at the beginning of Onslaught. Also, there's a great X-Men podcast called Cerebro and they did an episode on Iceman showing that Bobby has been queer-coded for a long time
Just because you were naive and didn’t realize gay people (who have existed since the dawn of time and human behavior) were a thing, doesn’t invalidate the authorial intent behind Bobby’s subtext
Hi Tom! I was recently re-reading "The Crossing" crossover, and there was a plot point which never went anywhere: in the event Kang is mentioned battling (and losing) against a mysterious enemy who we never see, and we never find out who that enemy was supposed to be (someone speculated it could be Tempus, but the secrecy made no sense if that was the case). At the end of the event it's heavily implied that Kang's demise opened the door for this enemy to strike the Earth. Then Onslaught happened and that "enemy" was never mentioned again. I know that Avengers Forever basically made that whole "enemy" point useless (Kang was actually Immortus keeping the Avengers busy before the Onslaught's arrival, so it stand to reason that there was no enemy to begin with), but I'm wondering if you knew who that "enemy" was originally supposed to be...
(And thank you for this newsletter, it's always a fascinating read!)
Your Legion answer raises an interesting point: now that most of the Marvel character rights for films and TV are back under the Marvel umbrella, is there a standard work-for-hire character creation clause written into the TV and movie contracts? I know the current iteration of the Scarlet Scarab was created for the Moon Knight show and is now in the comics, but if a comic writer wanted to grab an original character from a Marvel movie or TV show and use them in the comics, would there be a lot of levels of approval for that to happen, or is it one big happy family?
Do you have any thoughts on the practice Marvel introduced around 1979 (presumably by Jim Shooter's request) of abandoning the usual superhero comic practice of emphasizing certain words within a balloon, and switched to leaving all or nearly all the words un-emphasized?
(For examples of the switch, see Uncanny X-Men #120 vs. 121, and Avengers #182 vs. 183.)
I used to wonder why the lettering in Marvel comics of the 1980s felt a bit "off" to me and then I realized that it was because I was used to a certain amount of bold lettering within a speech balloon, and these comics didn't. Most of the comics seemed to have abandoned it by the late '80s, so others probably felt the same way, but I'm not sure if it was a problem or just something I wasn't used to.
Why do you think what happened in X-Factor keeps getting brought up over and over again, even though it was 40 years ago, but other things that are just as or more damaging to the X-Men franchise and the characters, like AvX, IvX, and the Inhuman cloud fiasco, are just ignored? Same with the love triangle and Jean and Logan's relationship on Krakoa now being ignored and retconned. How do you choose what stays and what should be ignored?
I actually don’t think the X-Factor controversy is that relevant in fan spaces at all anymore. Frankly, I don’t see it brought up “over and over again” by anyone other than the writers and editors themselves.
Well, Jean’s resurrection clearly messed up the story Claremont was telling about Scott and Madelyne. And took the work of other writers and editors to smooth things over the best they could. But I don’t think that Chris really ever got over what happened to his story. (However, one could make the argument that Claremont’s scripts were weaker when he was granted more creative control over certain projects, but that’s beside the point.)
These days, I think that writers are more aware of the creative limitations that come with writing for Marvel.
That's what I'm talking about. Why keep bringing up what happened in X-Factor 40 years ago, but ignoring what happened in AvX, IvX, and the whole Inhuman cloud mess. And I'm saying this as a fan of the X-Men and the Inhumans. Bendis' run was also messed up because of Secret Wars, and everything that came after was a huge mess, but it keeps getting ignored. I just want to understand the choices made about what is and isn't ignored by writers and editors. And why.
To be brutally honest, the X-books were significantly more popular 40 years ago than they were 10 years ago. I think part of the reason why people don’t talk about AvX, IvX, and the Bendis run is because, 1. less people read those stories, 2. those stories weren’t broadly well-received by the people who did read them, and 3. current creative teams don’t seem to have much interest in revisiting that particular era.
I think this is evident in the fact that the plot elements and characters that were introduced to the franchise in the 2010s haven’t made much of a lasting impact on the books being published today.
I see, it makes sense. But still, I find it sad, because AvX is where I became an X-Men fan, so I don't understand why we would keep talking about something that happened 40 years ago and has been said over and over again, but just ignore something that hasn't been said yet but is like the writers and editors just chose to ignore it. I know a lot of X-Men fans are over 40/50, but it's just sad that younger fans don't get a chance to read the consequences of something that happened 13 years ago (or 7 years ago). :(( Anyway, thanks for the explanation.
I’d say it’s probably because there’s some real-world behind-the-scenes drama around the X-Factor thing, with editors and creators at odds, while if there is any such drama around those more recent events, the public at large isn’t aware of it.
It was one of the first controversies behind the scenes during a time that fandom was more active. It also came on the heels of the Dark Phoenix saga and affected that story as well. And it impacted Xmen storylines (top book at the time). Fascinating stuff behind the scenes and in retrospect you can see the cracks in the stories at the time as they tried to make sense of it all.
Also it is pretty clear that Claremont just used Maddy Pryor as a stand in for his original plans for a depowered Jean Grey he did not want to kill at the end of Dark Phoenix.
X-Factor probably gets discussed a lot because it's the first case of such a prominent death being reversed in Marvel, and it was against Chris Claremont's wishes. But that said, it is so old now I don't see what the point of any repeated discussion is, it happened. Might as well just move on.
Yes, I also agree that it's best to move on, but that's not what's happening, because not only the fandom, but writers and editors keep bringing this up over and over again. I also think that a writer shouldn't be so bitter about a fictional character, trying to get revenge on him, talking about it all the time, creating a love triangle that just makes Jean and Scott sound bad, because let's be honest, only Logan sounds like a winner getting the girl who could be his granddaughter, and making Cyclops sound like a loser. I mean, that was 40 years ago, so why does it always have to be brought up, when there's so much to be said about what hasn't been said between AvX, IvX and Krakoa, for example.
To be honest, who brings it up anymore? I think Dark Web was the last time it had any significance, and that was a resolution. Maddie and Jean and Cyclops all made peace. I think Wolverine #400 even put the love triangle to bed too.
That's exactly what I'm saying. The love triangle is being ignored and retconned, as you yourself are saying about Wolverine #400, while something that happened 40 years ago continues to be canon and mentioned. So how is the choice made about what should be ignored, considering that both were detrimental to the same characters. English is not my first language, so I'm afraid I'm just not getting across what I'm trying to say. :((
Your English is good. I think you're overestimating how much people bring up X-Factor and Madelyn Pryor though. I don't think people mention her much at all anymore and I doubt it'll be revisited anytime soon.
I occasionally point out that the return of Jean isn't even the first case of a prominent death being reversed in X-MEN. Professor X "died" in issue 42, with a big blaring logo blurb and another announcing that this was "Not a Hoax! Not a Dream! Not an Imaginary Tale! This is For Real!"
He turned up alive again in issue 65, using the same basic reveal as with Jean: "That wasn't me that died, that was someone pretending to be me." So the cover lied. It was indeed a hoax.
With all due respect, and I have heard that you’re the person who conceived of and pitched the return of Jean, the Dark Phoenix storyline resonated with readers much more than the 60s death of Professor X storyline. And as glad as I am to have Jean back in the comics in the long run, her initial return caused a lot of problems for the Uncanny X-Men title at the time. And as a reader, it didn’t feel organic or aligned with what was going on the book.
I didn't pitch anything, Jordan. I came up with the resurrection method as part of a fan game and talked about it with friends. One of those friends -- Roger Stern -- passed it on to John Byrne, and John, Bob Layton and Roger pitched it, with me completely unaware of it until after it was a done deal.
And I wouldn't say that the death of Xavier was as big a story as(it certainly didn't happen in the direct-market age, which made a difference), but it was absolutely prominent, which was Seastar's description. People forget about it because for most of them it had already been undone by the time they started reading comics. But it was still prominent, and reshaped the series for years, until it was undone.
I'm not sure why you think I'm unaware that it caused a lot of problems -- I was mostly a spectator to it (I was working on MARVEL AGE MAGAZINE at the time, so I covered it, for sure) -- but I was there and saw it firsthand.
And the revival of Professor X also didn't feel organic or aligned with what was going on in the book either. It was abrupt and out of left field, and was absurdly unconvincing.
My apologies, I was misremembering what I had heard in the past on how Jean’s return was conceived. Going off of what I think I heard Byrne said about it, but it looks like I got the details wrong. I’m sure you were aware of the fallout, I was just providing my two cents. Comes from never fully understanding the need to resurrect her at that time, as from the outside, it seemed like a controversial decision with both readers and creators.
It made a ton of money. That's never an inconsiderable motivation when it comes to the publishing business.
I don't think Jim Shooter would have demanded someone do it if he'd come up with the idea himself, but when several of his top creators come to him and say, "Let's do this idea that will create a crossover between our books and launch the new book one of us is creating really, really successfully," then he's got lots of reasons to say yes.
That it would annoy Chris could be seen as a negative, but one overshadowed by all the positives. Or, on some days, it could seem like a bonus, possibly, depending on if he was annoyed at Chris over something. People in comics are always people, in their complicated messy natures.
That's a good point! I had forgotten that one, I guess as the Silver Age is so overlooked for X-Men, that one goes under the radar. For what it's worth, I do like X-Factor, I think people overstate how problematic it is, in regards to the end of Scott's marriage to Madelyn, which felt rather contrived to begin with.
I've heard that the end of Scott's marriage was so messy because the X-office wouldn't let the X-FACTOR team use Madelyne, which made it hard for them to be seen communicating. I have no idea if that's true or not.
But that part was definitely a mess, and whoever caused it, it didn't need to be done that clumsily.
People don't bring up "AvX, IvX, and the whole Inhuman cloud mess" because those stories did not have a lasting impact on the readership. Forgettable stories get forgotten.
I don't think they should be ignored, but rather fixed, with consequences and inserted into continuity. Sorry, I'm not a long-time fan, and AvX was precisely when I became a fan of the X-Men. Cyclops, Magik, Magneto and Emma are my faves. :((
1. Have you ever had a situation where you had a creator that you worked with, use an idea that they had previously discussed with you, but for another company? Either a specific idea they had for Batman, for example, or one that they had in mind for a Marvel character that they ended up tweaking for their work on another company’s character?
2. How do you feel about spoilers personally? In your position, you know a lot of details about upcoming Marvel comics and even Marvel Studios projects, so I’m curious if that has formed and/or changed your feelings on seeing spoilers for upcoming projects, in general, across different mediums
3. In your opinion, what types of stories or series fall under the umbrella of “that wouldn’t work today”? Not in the same vein as a Blazing Saddles, necessarily, so not because of changing cultural standards. But maybe more like a Heroes Reborn experiment, or a Thunderbolts twist, or a weekly year long 52 series.
I haven't read the original MONSTER SOCIETY OF EVIL story, but from what I've heard about it, it wasn't just foreign cultures that were stereotyped: the story also featured Captain Marvel's Black sidekick, about whom the most charitable thing you can say was that he was of his time. For anyone who doesn't know about him, let me simply tell you his name: Steamboat.
Small correction, that makes it worse. Steamboat wasn't Cap's sidekick. He was Billy's and Cap's valet (I forget if he knew they were the same or if he thought he had two separate bosses), so really their servant. And Steamboat was so poorly portrayed that he only lasted three years, there being organized protests by at least one youth group against him.
Well, I'd include that in an expansive definition of "sidekick". I'd agree it's worse. (The only actual story I've read with him in it was the one where he was introduced.)
Because of Fawcett's lack of attention to copyright renewal, most of "The Monster Society Of Evil" fell into the public domain and is available from various publishers as print on demand volumes sold on Amazon, B&N, Lulu, etc.
Ironically, the exception is the story discussed in this week's newsletter, CAPTAIN MARVEL ADVENTURES #46. That issue is still properly copyrighted and can't be legally reprinted. Depending on how ethical they are, some publishers include it anyway. "The End Of Mr. Mind" is in SHAZAM FROM THE 40s TO THE 70s.
Hi Tom, Funny you mention ‘Ludwig’, the latter episode that takes place in the school, is in reality the school I was Headmaster of for eleven years - St James Senior Boys School, in Ashford Surrey. The Heads office in the serial was actually one end of the chapel and not my actual office. I was there when filming took place, but only saw the lead, the wonderful David Mitchell, from a distance. Glad you liked it, a lovely show.
Just to mention it, personally I first became familiar with Mitchell's work in That Mitchell and Webb Look, a sequel of tv sketch comedy to their BBC Radio's That Mitchell and Webb Sound. Possibly also worth noting that if people recall it when Mark Evanier's blog kept posting its recurring Numberwang! game show sketch for a while, the "Julie from Somerset" contestant was played by later Academy Award winner Olivia Colman ("Simon from Somerset" was played by Paterson Joseph). I've heard recently the two of them will be doing another sketch comedy show including several young up and coming comedians.
Yes, thanks. There is a dearth of funny comedy shows in England, so I gather they have been commissioned to come up with a sketch show. ‘Upstart Crow’ David Mitchell’s Shakespeare Comedy is very funny and worth a watch if you haven’t seen it.
Perfect final issues: Starman 80 by James Robinson - we get closure, a fun action packed story, hints at the future for the supporting cast and just a perfect ending (in general I found that James Robinson was adept at ending individual issues as well - satisfying on many levels as a reader).
Suicide Squad 66: by John Ostrander - a master plotter that knew how to tie up many loose ends in a cool way and a badass ending that ties into the themes (and title of the series) but gives you hope as well. Great Deadshot moment. His final issue of the 90s era Spectre is also a Nic emotional tale as Jim Corrigan gets a proper funeral.
The racial & homophobic slurs from the those FF & X-Men/New Mutants issues are now censored digitally & in new printings. There was a clean sweep of all such material via 2020.
I noticed that - also in the Miracleman reprints as well.
I wonder what Tom's thoughts on this are. It is a tricky subject. Personally I think it should be reprinted as is...but there is a part of me that also understands that it can be hurtful so maybe it should be censored. Not an easy answer.
I pretty much assume this measure is well beyond whatever Tom or anybody else in editorial, sales, etc. thinks about it personally. It basically comes down to:
A modern reprint, in any kind of capacity, is money being generated today in the present. Regardless if something was "OK" when it was first printed, it wouldn't be OK to make money off today. Therefore, it has to censored from here on out, whenever presented for purchase.
There are some people who are under the impression that this Hellfire Vigil is a response to Marvel Rivals including Krakoa in their game, and this is all a late stage pivot. For the benefit of people who seem to believe that (somehow), could give us some insight into how long it takes to put together a project like this, with multiple writers, multiple artists, and setting up future stories through it? I was under the impression it would take 4-5 months at minimum, if not more (well before Marvel Rivals announced anything).
“Professor X was born in 1940 and served in the same unit with his stepbrother, Cain Marko, during the Korean War.”
So he served in the Korean War before he was 14 years old? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.
When Kirby & Lee first told the story of Xavier and Cain’s early days, Xavier must have been born before 1940. Later writers moved his birthdate to keep him from seeming too old, and these days he was probably born even later, and the origin of the Juggernaut happened after the Korean War was over. It could still happen in Korea, since there are US soldiers stationed there even now, but during some sort of fictional border incident rather than the actual war.
This is how Marvel Time works. Topical references get replaced over time. Reed and Ben no longer fought in WWII, and Ben and Johnny didn’t meet the Beatles.
But while Xavier and Cain can easily be slid forward in time, Magneto can’t, because WWII is so significant to his history. So he gets older and older, while they don’t.
So it’s not a problem that Cain is older than Xavier, because they’re both unanchored in time and stay at the same age-gap as they slide forward. Magneto, though, like Namor, gets older and older. It’s not a problem for Namor, other than making it harder for him to have met Betty Dean again in the modern era — but that’s been ignored for decades now, like Reed and Ben being in WWII. Magneto and Xavier’s relationship is still very active, so the growing age-gap creates an issue that matters to the comics of today.
I think I covered this in my response to Brandon, John. It’s easy to say he’s long-lived. But changing his meeting with Xavier so they’re vastly imbalanced in age changes things too — and even if you say they met in the 70s, in ten years that won’t work any more either.
So it’s possible to address it, but it takes some thought. Already I’m having some ideas that could create a new dynamic between Xavier and Magneto that could be pretty rich, but whether Marvel wants a new dynamic, I don’t know. Whether longtime fans want to see those Claremont stories revised and updated, I don’t know. It can get to be a delicate dance.
It's just the beginnings of an idea, so far, not anything I've proposed.
And I doubt I'll be trying to reach Kevin Feige anytime soon, but I do know the X-Men editor pretty well, so maybe we'll talk about it sometime.
And thanks for the kind words.
From an outside perspective, the introduction of secondary mutations seems like it could solve this one fairly easily if it becomes a huge issue. Max’s secondary mutation could just be slowed aging.
Yeah, that part’s easy. I’ve been suggesting that since the 80s, at least.
What Tom’s pointing out is that having Magneto be that old means he and Xavier didn’t meet as young men; Xavier was no longer alive when Magneto was young. And if Magneto made his public debut 14 years ago (or however long ago their current timeline says the events of X-Men 1 happened), what was he doing between 1945 and 2011? That’s a long stretch to be filled, and makes you wonder why did he decide on a big public crusade when he was approaching 80?
It’s easy to say he’s just long-lived; harder to deal with the relationships he formed as those years reel into the past.
That’s not to say it can’t be done, but doing it elegantly, in a way that serves the character, is still a hurdle.
This is the same problem with the JSA. You can come up with reasons why they lived a long time, but need some further explanation of why they waited till "30 years ago" to settle down and have children.
Or you get into the Gasoline Alley problem. You can work with Walt being the world's oldest person at around 125 by just writing him as very old and not being specific about being in WWI or that specifically old. But while they did kill off his similarly aged wife a couple of decades back and just didn't use his similarly aged pals any more, his son Skeezix is 100+, as is his wife. Their kids are in their 80s. And so on. So if the JSA did have kids at "normal" ages (lets call it under 40 for the most part, and yes, I'm aware there are cases of significantly older fathers; President John Tyler was born in 1790, assumed the office of President in 1841, and has a still living grandson some 235 years later); you have to how those kids are in their 60s-80s [which they seem to be doing by just ignoring it with the Black Canaries, as Dinah I would seem to have been in her 70s when she had Dinah II))
I've always liked the idea, which I've only seen in a few plays, that the characters remain the same age even as time passes around them. Like the musical "Love Life," which the Encores! series recently revived, about a couple who marry, raise children, contemplate divorce, etc. but the story begins in the 18th century and ends in the present day, with the characters going through a normal life span in hundreds of years without ever noticing.
The fact that this device is very rare even in the theatre (where it's easier to pull off) makes it clear that there is something alienating about it, but I feel like I personally would find it less alienating to say that all these things happened in the year the comics were published, regardless of how much time seems to have passed in between, than it is to constantly update references and erase the things we saw happen in the comics. It always catches me off guard and takes me out of the story when the FF went into space for a different reason, characters fought in a different war, etc.
No one will ever try it this way so it doesn't really matter, but I feel like (to use a non-comics example) I would like Homer and Marge Simpson to always have met in the 1970s, and just assume that time works differently in their world.
Is there anything we can expect/anticipate for Cloak and Dagger in the next year? Feels like they’ve never been more popular than they are right now thanks to Marvel Rivals, and I’d just love to see them at the very least have more team-up appearances in major books.
Exactly this, Especially Cloak, it feels like the spotlight has been completely yanked from him for some reason, I honestly hate the way he's being treated in the recent runs. It's almost as if certain writers don't like him. I really miss their Ultimate Universe variants. Even Marvel Rivals portrayed them better than most of what we have right now.
Weisinger was, like the rest of DC’s editors at the time, *very* hands on with plot. Schwartz, for one, was so hands on with co-plotting; he was so heavy on editing and necessarily rewriting Gardner Fox that he deserved co-writing credit or at acknowledgment at the GCD IMO. Also explains why Fox’s non-DC work read so different everywhere else.
Any, Weisinger. He was known to co-plot with one writer then give that plot to a second writer hiding that another writer was in any way involved. That, again IMO, made him special among the editors there.
So he kept pulling the same plots out of the drawer as it were: totally credible.
As for Superman’s sales ca the mid-60s, I say sales held up while the quality was declining. Again, just an opinion. (See Tom’s blog post.)
Can’t wait for Kurt B to detail how I’m wrong here.
With all the cancelations announced iceman/kitty pryde are now the only Canon queer characters to be in an x-men books well I'm pretty used to it or there's no representation at all or at least there's a few
saying that I have a question
Since kitty/iceman are the only ones in a book, are they gonna stay there and even if the book comes to an end, are they gonna be in another book without being shelved since they are the most known characters in the franchise when it comes to queer mutants
are you that offended by Kate liking women that it makes you yap that much? Sometimes people discover themselves later in life. Sorry that makes you uncomfortable.
Chris Claremont has stated that his intention was for Kitty Pryde to always be bisexual, but she couldn't be because of the censors. But it's absolutely there with her interactions with both Rachel Summers and Magik.
Agree on the greatness of Avengers Academy. But Kitty would have been bisexual if it was allowed. The author is on record as saying this. She wasn't turned into anything. Just because someone has only dated men in the past doesn't make her straight. We're just allowed to say bisexual now. Also, lots of people don't know their sexuality when they're young and discover it in later life.
"I didn't see the subtext there because I'm not looking for hidden meanings when I read my comics."
Well, suppose that was true, that the only way somebody could pick up subtext an author puts in is if they went looking for it. Would there be anything wrong with a gay kid looking for that in a character? And if they found it... is it always the case that the most valid interpretation of literature is one restricted to the surface? Because there are an awful lot of people very concerned about books that allegedly have inappropriate subtext in schools, and it would make it easier if we could all agree there are no hidden meanings and therefore no reason to be concerned!
"But I also wasn't an outcast or part of a minority"
In other words, not like the X-Men?
"I knew my identity because I has a supportive family and I'm also an only child. When you're an only child, you get way more attention from your parents then you do if you have siblings. So I didn't feel the need to have to act out to get my parents attention"
This is very interesting; so kids who are unsure of their identity or don't feel comfortable being open about it... do they all have unsupportive families or siblings or didn't get enough attention? Could there be any kids who struggled with being gay growing up who were only children and came from attentive, supportive families? I wonder if there might be other things that could make growing up gay difficult or confusing, besides siblings or inattentive, unsupportive families. I guess the only way we could really know is if there were people who spoke publicly about having other experiences.
Imagine being an X-Men fan and complaining about Social Justice Warriors lmao
About the Iceman thing, many creators have wanted to make Bobby gay since the 90s, as you can see in the Jean and Bobby scene at the beginning of Onslaught. Also, there's a great X-Men podcast called Cerebro and they did an episode on Iceman showing that Bobby has been queer-coded for a long time
Just because you were naive and didn’t realize gay people (who have existed since the dawn of time and human behavior) were a thing, doesn’t invalidate the authorial intent behind Bobby’s subtext
Hi Tom! I was recently re-reading "The Crossing" crossover, and there was a plot point which never went anywhere: in the event Kang is mentioned battling (and losing) against a mysterious enemy who we never see, and we never find out who that enemy was supposed to be (someone speculated it could be Tempus, but the secrecy made no sense if that was the case). At the end of the event it's heavily implied that Kang's demise opened the door for this enemy to strike the Earth. Then Onslaught happened and that "enemy" was never mentioned again. I know that Avengers Forever basically made that whole "enemy" point useless (Kang was actually Immortus keeping the Avengers busy before the Onslaught's arrival, so it stand to reason that there was no enemy to begin with), but I'm wondering if you knew who that "enemy" was originally supposed to be...
(And thank you for this newsletter, it's always a fascinating read!)
Your Legion answer raises an interesting point: now that most of the Marvel character rights for films and TV are back under the Marvel umbrella, is there a standard work-for-hire character creation clause written into the TV and movie contracts? I know the current iteration of the Scarlet Scarab was created for the Moon Knight show and is now in the comics, but if a comic writer wanted to grab an original character from a Marvel movie or TV show and use them in the comics, would there be a lot of levels of approval for that to happen, or is it one big happy family?
Considering that we’ve seen Phil Coulson and the Kat Dennings character from the MCU show up in the comics, I’m willing to assume it’s not that hard
Sure—and Miss Minutes, too. I’m just curious about the process.
Do you have any thoughts on the practice Marvel introduced around 1979 (presumably by Jim Shooter's request) of abandoning the usual superhero comic practice of emphasizing certain words within a balloon, and switched to leaving all or nearly all the words un-emphasized?
(For examples of the switch, see Uncanny X-Men #120 vs. 121, and Avengers #182 vs. 183.)
I used to wonder why the lettering in Marvel comics of the 1980s felt a bit "off" to me and then I realized that it was because I was used to a certain amount of bold lettering within a speech balloon, and these comics didn't. Most of the comics seemed to have abandoned it by the late '80s, so others probably felt the same way, but I'm not sure if it was a problem or just something I wasn't used to.
Why do you think what happened in X-Factor keeps getting brought up over and over again, even though it was 40 years ago, but other things that are just as or more damaging to the X-Men franchise and the characters, like AvX, IvX, and the Inhuman cloud fiasco, are just ignored? Same with the love triangle and Jean and Logan's relationship on Krakoa now being ignored and retconned. How do you choose what stays and what should be ignored?
I actually don’t think the X-Factor controversy is that relevant in fan spaces at all anymore. Frankly, I don’t see it brought up “over and over again” by anyone other than the writers and editors themselves.
But that's what I'm talking about, about writers and editors.
Well, Jean’s resurrection clearly messed up the story Claremont was telling about Scott and Madelyne. And took the work of other writers and editors to smooth things over the best they could. But I don’t think that Chris really ever got over what happened to his story. (However, one could make the argument that Claremont’s scripts were weaker when he was granted more creative control over certain projects, but that’s beside the point.)
These days, I think that writers are more aware of the creative limitations that come with writing for Marvel.
That's what I'm talking about. Why keep bringing up what happened in X-Factor 40 years ago, but ignoring what happened in AvX, IvX, and the whole Inhuman cloud mess. And I'm saying this as a fan of the X-Men and the Inhumans. Bendis' run was also messed up because of Secret Wars, and everything that came after was a huge mess, but it keeps getting ignored. I just want to understand the choices made about what is and isn't ignored by writers and editors. And why.
To be brutally honest, the X-books were significantly more popular 40 years ago than they were 10 years ago. I think part of the reason why people don’t talk about AvX, IvX, and the Bendis run is because, 1. less people read those stories, 2. those stories weren’t broadly well-received by the people who did read them, and 3. current creative teams don’t seem to have much interest in revisiting that particular era.
I think this is evident in the fact that the plot elements and characters that were introduced to the franchise in the 2010s haven’t made much of a lasting impact on the books being published today.
I see, it makes sense. But still, I find it sad, because AvX is where I became an X-Men fan, so I don't understand why we would keep talking about something that happened 40 years ago and has been said over and over again, but just ignore something that hasn't been said yet but is like the writers and editors just chose to ignore it. I know a lot of X-Men fans are over 40/50, but it's just sad that younger fans don't get a chance to read the consequences of something that happened 13 years ago (or 7 years ago). :(( Anyway, thanks for the explanation.
I’d say it’s probably because there’s some real-world behind-the-scenes drama around the X-Factor thing, with editors and creators at odds, while if there is any such drama around those more recent events, the public at large isn’t aware of it.
It was one of the first controversies behind the scenes during a time that fandom was more active. It also came on the heels of the Dark Phoenix saga and affected that story as well. And it impacted Xmen storylines (top book at the time). Fascinating stuff behind the scenes and in retrospect you can see the cracks in the stories at the time as they tried to make sense of it all.
Also it is pretty clear that Claremont just used Maddy Pryor as a stand in for his original plans for a depowered Jean Grey he did not want to kill at the end of Dark Phoenix.
X-Factor probably gets discussed a lot because it's the first case of such a prominent death being reversed in Marvel, and it was against Chris Claremont's wishes. But that said, it is so old now I don't see what the point of any repeated discussion is, it happened. Might as well just move on.
Yes, I also agree that it's best to move on, but that's not what's happening, because not only the fandom, but writers and editors keep bringing this up over and over again. I also think that a writer shouldn't be so bitter about a fictional character, trying to get revenge on him, talking about it all the time, creating a love triangle that just makes Jean and Scott sound bad, because let's be honest, only Logan sounds like a winner getting the girl who could be his granddaughter, and making Cyclops sound like a loser. I mean, that was 40 years ago, so why does it always have to be brought up, when there's so much to be said about what hasn't been said between AvX, IvX and Krakoa, for example.
To be honest, who brings it up anymore? I think Dark Web was the last time it had any significance, and that was a resolution. Maddie and Jean and Cyclops all made peace. I think Wolverine #400 even put the love triangle to bed too.
That's exactly what I'm saying. The love triangle is being ignored and retconned, as you yourself are saying about Wolverine #400, while something that happened 40 years ago continues to be canon and mentioned. So how is the choice made about what should be ignored, considering that both were detrimental to the same characters. English is not my first language, so I'm afraid I'm just not getting across what I'm trying to say. :((
Your English is good. I think you're overestimating how much people bring up X-Factor and Madelyn Pryor though. I don't think people mention her much at all anymore and I doubt it'll be revisited anytime soon.
I occasionally point out that the return of Jean isn't even the first case of a prominent death being reversed in X-MEN. Professor X "died" in issue 42, with a big blaring logo blurb and another announcing that this was "Not a Hoax! Not a Dream! Not an Imaginary Tale! This is For Real!"
He turned up alive again in issue 65, using the same basic reveal as with Jean: "That wasn't me that died, that was someone pretending to be me." So the cover lied. It was indeed a hoax.
With all due respect, and I have heard that you’re the person who conceived of and pitched the return of Jean, the Dark Phoenix storyline resonated with readers much more than the 60s death of Professor X storyline. And as glad as I am to have Jean back in the comics in the long run, her initial return caused a lot of problems for the Uncanny X-Men title at the time. And as a reader, it didn’t feel organic or aligned with what was going on the book.
I didn't pitch anything, Jordan. I came up with the resurrection method as part of a fan game and talked about it with friends. One of those friends -- Roger Stern -- passed it on to John Byrne, and John, Bob Layton and Roger pitched it, with me completely unaware of it until after it was a done deal.
And I wouldn't say that the death of Xavier was as big a story as(it certainly didn't happen in the direct-market age, which made a difference), but it was absolutely prominent, which was Seastar's description. People forget about it because for most of them it had already been undone by the time they started reading comics. But it was still prominent, and reshaped the series for years, until it was undone.
I'm not sure why you think I'm unaware that it caused a lot of problems -- I was mostly a spectator to it (I was working on MARVEL AGE MAGAZINE at the time, so I covered it, for sure) -- but I was there and saw it firsthand.
And the revival of Professor X also didn't feel organic or aligned with what was going on in the book either. It was abrupt and out of left field, and was absurdly unconvincing.
My apologies, I was misremembering what I had heard in the past on how Jean’s return was conceived. Going off of what I think I heard Byrne said about it, but it looks like I got the details wrong. I’m sure you were aware of the fallout, I was just providing my two cents. Comes from never fully understanding the need to resurrect her at that time, as from the outside, it seemed like a controversial decision with both readers and creators.
It made a ton of money. That's never an inconsiderable motivation when it comes to the publishing business.
I don't think Jim Shooter would have demanded someone do it if he'd come up with the idea himself, but when several of his top creators come to him and say, "Let's do this idea that will create a crossover between our books and launch the new book one of us is creating really, really successfully," then he's got lots of reasons to say yes.
That it would annoy Chris could be seen as a negative, but one overshadowed by all the positives. Or, on some days, it could seem like a bonus, possibly, depending on if he was annoyed at Chris over something. People in comics are always people, in their complicated messy natures.
That's a good point! I had forgotten that one, I guess as the Silver Age is so overlooked for X-Men, that one goes under the radar. For what it's worth, I do like X-Factor, I think people overstate how problematic it is, in regards to the end of Scott's marriage to Madelyn, which felt rather contrived to begin with.
I've heard that the end of Scott's marriage was so messy because the X-office wouldn't let the X-FACTOR team use Madelyne, which made it hard for them to be seen communicating. I have no idea if that's true or not.
But that part was definitely a mess, and whoever caused it, it didn't need to be done that clumsily.
People don't bring up "AvX, IvX, and the whole Inhuman cloud mess" because those stories did not have a lasting impact on the readership. Forgettable stories get forgotten.
I don't think they should be ignored, but rather fixed, with consequences and inserted into continuity. Sorry, I'm not a long-time fan, and AvX was precisely when I became a fan of the X-Men. Cyclops, Magik, Magneto and Emma are my faves. :((
Mr. Brevoort, a few questions:
1. Have you ever had a situation where you had a creator that you worked with, use an idea that they had previously discussed with you, but for another company? Either a specific idea they had for Batman, for example, or one that they had in mind for a Marvel character that they ended up tweaking for their work on another company’s character?
2. How do you feel about spoilers personally? In your position, you know a lot of details about upcoming Marvel comics and even Marvel Studios projects, so I’m curious if that has formed and/or changed your feelings on seeing spoilers for upcoming projects, in general, across different mediums
3. In your opinion, what types of stories or series fall under the umbrella of “that wouldn’t work today”? Not in the same vein as a Blazing Saddles, necessarily, so not because of changing cultural standards. But maybe more like a Heroes Reborn experiment, or a Thunderbolts twist, or a weekly year long 52 series.
I haven't read the original MONSTER SOCIETY OF EVIL story, but from what I've heard about it, it wasn't just foreign cultures that were stereotyped: the story also featured Captain Marvel's Black sidekick, about whom the most charitable thing you can say was that he was of his time. For anyone who doesn't know about him, let me simply tell you his name: Steamboat.
Small correction, that makes it worse. Steamboat wasn't Cap's sidekick. He was Billy's and Cap's valet (I forget if he knew they were the same or if he thought he had two separate bosses), so really their servant. And Steamboat was so poorly portrayed that he only lasted three years, there being organized protests by at least one youth group against him.
Well, I'd include that in an expansive definition of "sidekick". I'd agree it's worse. (The only actual story I've read with him in it was the one where he was introduced.)
Because of Fawcett's lack of attention to copyright renewal, most of "The Monster Society Of Evil" fell into the public domain and is available from various publishers as print on demand volumes sold on Amazon, B&N, Lulu, etc.
Ironically, the exception is the story discussed in this week's newsletter, CAPTAIN MARVEL ADVENTURES #46. That issue is still properly copyrighted and can't be legally reprinted. Depending on how ethical they are, some publishers include it anyway. "The End Of Mr. Mind" is in SHAZAM FROM THE 40s TO THE 70s.
Hi Tom, Funny you mention ‘Ludwig’, the latter episode that takes place in the school, is in reality the school I was Headmaster of for eleven years - St James Senior Boys School, in Ashford Surrey. The Heads office in the serial was actually one end of the chapel and not my actual office. I was there when filming took place, but only saw the lead, the wonderful David Mitchell, from a distance. Glad you liked it, a lovely show.
Just to mention it, personally I first became familiar with Mitchell's work in That Mitchell and Webb Look, a sequel of tv sketch comedy to their BBC Radio's That Mitchell and Webb Sound. Possibly also worth noting that if people recall it when Mark Evanier's blog kept posting its recurring Numberwang! game show sketch for a while, the "Julie from Somerset" contestant was played by later Academy Award winner Olivia Colman ("Simon from Somerset" was played by Paterson Joseph). I've heard recently the two of them will be doing another sketch comedy show including several young up and coming comedians.
Yes, thanks. There is a dearth of funny comedy shows in England, so I gather they have been commissioned to come up with a sketch show. ‘Upstart Crow’ David Mitchell’s Shakespeare Comedy is very funny and worth a watch if you haven’t seen it.
Perfect final issues: Starman 80 by James Robinson - we get closure, a fun action packed story, hints at the future for the supporting cast and just a perfect ending (in general I found that James Robinson was adept at ending individual issues as well - satisfying on many levels as a reader).
Suicide Squad 66: by John Ostrander - a master plotter that knew how to tie up many loose ends in a cool way and a badass ending that ties into the themes (and title of the series) but gives you hope as well. Great Deadshot moment. His final issue of the 90s era Spectre is also a Nic emotional tale as Jim Corrigan gets a proper funeral.
Talking about the Monster society story made me think: what are your thoughts on reprinting 'problematic' comics of the past?
Stereotypes in Monster Society or the SPIRIT or even use of the "N" word from some 80s era issues of FF and Xmen.
Do you censor them? not reprint them? redact them?
The racial & homophobic slurs from the those FF & X-Men/New Mutants issues are now censored digitally & in new printings. There was a clean sweep of all such material via 2020.
I noticed that - also in the Miracleman reprints as well.
I wonder what Tom's thoughts on this are. It is a tricky subject. Personally I think it should be reprinted as is...but there is a part of me that also understands that it can be hurtful so maybe it should be censored. Not an easy answer.
I pretty much assume this measure is well beyond whatever Tom or anybody else in editorial, sales, etc. thinks about it personally. It basically comes down to:
A modern reprint, in any kind of capacity, is money being generated today in the present. Regardless if something was "OK" when it was first printed, it wouldn't be OK to make money off today. Therefore, it has to censored from here on out, whenever presented for purchase.
There are some people who are under the impression that this Hellfire Vigil is a response to Marvel Rivals including Krakoa in their game, and this is all a late stage pivot. For the benefit of people who seem to believe that (somehow), could give us some insight into how long it takes to put together a project like this, with multiple writers, multiple artists, and setting up future stories through it? I was under the impression it would take 4-5 months at minimum, if not more (well before Marvel Rivals announced anything).
"Let’s be real here, Najee—there isn’t any answer to this question that I could give you that would satisfy you, is there?"
Perhaps that's something to reflect on. The X-books, in particular, have a strong history in regard to the question being asked.